Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change Is "My Religion and My Dharma."

Pachauri resigns: Here's hoping for a more objective IPCC leader

|

Pachauri
thehindu

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, has stepped down amidst a sexual harassment scandal. In his letter of resignation to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Pachauri declared:

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."  

In Hinduism dharma is the path of righteousness.

Pachauri has been criticized by many for righteously confusing climate change science with climate policy advocacy. For example, in its 2010 review of IPCC processes, the InterAcademy Council observed:

IPCC leaders have been criticized for making public statements that were perceived as advocating specific climate policies. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC's credibility.

Here's hoping that the next leader of the IPCC will welcome scientific criticism and emphasize information and decisionmaking transparency.

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: Islamic State Abducts 150 Christians, Rahm Emanuel Forced into Run-Off, Reddit Requires Consent to Post Nude Photos

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The first to admit publicly that it’s a religion?

    1. One of the sacraments is sheep fucking.

      1. That’s pretty much true of all of the sacraments, given an appropriate definition of sheep.

      2. One of the sacraments is sheep fucking.

        That and reading Carbonetics by A. Arnold Gore.

      3. Actually the policy is to kill most of the sheep. Sacrifice them to Gaia.

  2. Pachauri has been critiized by many for righteously confusing climate change science with climate policy advocacy.

    And he is not alone.

  3. “the survival of all species….”

    This comes across as an incredibly ignorant goal.

    1. You know who else tried to ensure the survival of all species? They’re still looking for the boat on some mountain top…

      1. John Cusack?

        1. Russel Crowe?

            1. Too bad it requires getting tentacle-raped.

      2. Steve Carell

  4. You know, right there is the face of an honest commie. At least he admits that it’s a religion, which we’ve all been saying for years.

  5. Will he go back and do the job he’s actually scientifically qualified to do: drive trains?

    1. What is it about commies driving things? There’s a commie in Venezuela who started out as a bus driver. I’m seeing a trend here…

      1. They’re the only ones who can make them run on time?

        1. While at the same time making sure they’ll be a shortage of something?

        2. ha- if you think the buses in venezuela or the trains in india are on time…

          1. They are. They just mandate time stoppages when they need to. Venezuela is now 4 months and a week behind the rest of the world.

    2. He’d make a great community organizer..

  6. “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

    The messianic aspect of Climate Change ideology wasn’t lost on us, Shaggy.

  7. This post was a disappointment on multiple levels.

    First, it needed to have this picture, with the alt text Two sexual harassers.

    Socendly, the criticism of Pachauri is much, much milder than is deserved.

    Let us travel back to 2009. The individuals who would write the upcoming climate report hadn’t yet been selected (that didn’t happen until the following year). They hadn’t yet attended any IPCC meetings. Much of the research it would be their duty to evaluate hadn’t yet been published.
    Nevertheless, the IPCC chairman knew ? all those years in advance ? what their conclusions would be. In September 2009, he told religious leaders in New York:

    When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’

    Not only did Pachauri know the nature and direction of the IPCC report’s conclusions, he knew these conclusions would be alarming and dramatic.

    One of the biggest reasons for the huge mismatch between the actual observations and what people think the science is saying is the fact that members of the CAGW religious cult are running the IPCC!

    1. + 2 crazed sex poodles

    2. Or go back to 2007, when Pachauri included the catastrophic prediction that Himalayan glaciers were going to be entirely melted by 2035. This led to a Carnegie grant of $500,000 for “research, analysis and training on water-related security and humanitarian challenges to South Asia posed by melting Himalaya glaciers.” This helped Dr Pachauri set up the TERI Glaciology team, putting at its head now professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain.

      Pachauri is head of TERI. Hasnain originally speculated the 2035 meltdown in an interview with the WWF.

      1. Academic Enviro-extortion =

        “that’s a nice glacier you have over there. It’d be a shame if someone were to do a study suggesting it were melting and you were doing nothing about it. Voters might think you were going soft. I bet someone might even run against you, blaming you for the potential deaths of future millions….”

    3. In September 2009, he told fellow religious leaders in New York”

      FTFY

  8. It’s a religion, but it’s not a religion. It’s a set of tenets based more on feeling and belief, but it’s not technically a religion so it can infiltrate layers of government and set policy and command access to BILLIONS of dollars. It can control the NOAA, and a goodly chunk of NASA, and copious other alphabet soup departments. There’s not separation between “church” and State for this religion.

    1. “There’s not separation between “church” and State for this religion.”

      As is often the case with totalitarianism.

    2. The state has become their god to which they turn to solve problems. It is no different than any other religion.

      1. It is different. It is much more dangerous.

        It’s also nothing new. Governments have been claiming divine right to rule since day one.

        I think that “religion” is a term best reserved for a particular kind of belief system that involves things like divine beings, the afterlife, etc. To apply the term to any beliefs that people hold with what might be called religious fervor just confuses things. Not all irrational or poorly empirically supported beliefs are religious.

  9. Groupthink. Classic groupthink.

    1. I think that is the perfect term to describe the clusterfuck that is climate science and advocacy today.

  10. “IPCC leaders have been criticized for making public statements that were perceived as advocating specific climate policies. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility.”

    I don’t know what it is surprising about this advocacy. What would be the point of spewing thousand-page reports year after year which state the obvious (that climate changes) if it wasn’t to support a chosen set of anti-capitalist policies?

    This is the U.N. we’re talking about here, people!

    1. “What is surprising…” – need more coffee…

  11. His replacement is likely to be worse.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/20…..uits-ipcc/

    1. Commies don’t pick successors that are better, they pick ones who are more totalitarian than they were.

      1. meh, excepting Gorbachev?

        1. Damnit! I knew someone was going to say that! Fucking Perestroika ruined my comment!

          1. It also ruined the lives of the politburo.

          2. Also, Malenkov and Deng Xiaoping.

            1. Deng oversaw the murder of Tankman. I don’t think he was really all that much better in the long run- only pretend.

              1. Things did improve for an awful lot of Chinese who weren’t murdered at protests. Mao was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people if not more. I think Deng was at least somewhat of an improvement.

            2. Mao didn’t pick Deng though. It was more along the lines of a palace coup.

            3. Deng Xiaoping’s historical importance will grow over time. He was an old revolutionary, survived all the purges, defeated the Gang of Four, coined ‘To get rich is glorious’ and created Shenzhen SEZ. Deng also set a huge precedent of stability by retiring from the top post in an ordered transition, instead of dying there.

              The 1989 protests were largely about Politburo struggle between by-then old economic reformer guard and new political-reformer crowd led by Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang. The actual spark for those protests was miserable dormitory conditions for Chinese local students versus swankier digs for African exchange students at some college.

              That is unfortunate for Deng’s reputation, but over time I think his defeating Gang of Four and changing course of world’s largest nation will be more recognized for how big a deal it was.

    2. Here is a short YouTube video with Pachauri’s interim replacement on the occasion of IPCC’s 25th anniversary:

      Ismail El Gizouli – Interim IPCC Chairman

      Still, I’m not so sure that his interim replacement, Ismail El Gizouli of Sudan, is going to be worse than Pachauri.

      1. Here is Mr. Gizouli’s resume.

          1. That link is much worse.

  12. It is my religion and my dharma.

    That level of honesty is refreshing.

  13. Daisyworlder’s suffer from Gaianoia, or earth paranoia. Physiological side-effects include the brain casing developing holes which allows ultra-violet rays and heat to penetrate the mushy interior of the encephalon resulting in debilitating episodes of Paraphilic infantilism.

    1. Actually, I think it’s related to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

      These people have an anxiety that humans are harming the Earth. Unfortunately, their ritual behavior is encouraged rather than discouraged.

      1. It is an expression existential anxiety. These people claim to be atheists but are terrified of the abyss, even though they won’t admit it. They are desperate for some larger meaning in their lives but refuse to find it via God or even admit they need it. Believing in AGW gives them the meaning and relief from their existential anxiety while allowing them to keep their rational atheist pretenses.

        1. Some would likely claim to be atheists or secularist radicals but the majority are probably pantheists driven by guilt and paranoia into a overwhelming obsession with how humans disrupt the divine global homeostasis. There is larger meaning here for them but I doubt it has to do with finding existential relief in the eye of the yawning abyss as pantheists believe in a vague chemical notion of life after death.

          As in all divine pursuits adherents are driven by the flux of guilt and paranoia, both of which feed the faith inertia and the resulting intense drive to regulate others.

          1. So you don’t think hermits and monks are “divine purists”? They don’t seem to want to regulate others. The AGW people seek to regulate others because this world is all they have. They are crude materialists. They can find no inner peace or have any faith in or meaning from anything beyond their effect on this world. So, they must regulate others and control this world. That is all there is and the only meaning to be had is from controlling it and making it better.

            Take away the spiritual aspect of life and there is only control and regulation of others. As Aristotle says, without something higher than man, politics is the highest form of human endeavor.

            1. Monks have long been adherents to divine systems of oppression. From taking confessions during the Medieval Inquisition to extremist violence in modern Asia.

              Take away the spiritual aspect of life and there is only control and regulation of others.

              Socrates was killed by the ‘spiritual’. Socrates’ limited perspective here was proven by his own death. This isn’t to say that radical political philosophies that reject the divine don’t hold the potential for brutality- they do.

              I just don’t see the modern Gaia movement as any thing other than radical spiritualism embedded into a political movement.

              1. Monks have long been adherents to divine systems of oppression.

                Not the contemplative ones. You tell me how a monastery oppresses you? And you also ignore hermits, which have a huge tradition in nearly every world religion. Are they not divinely pure or do they somehow oppress you? The entire point of dropping out of the world is to give up on it. Giving up on the world and looking to the next is the opposite of oppression.

                Socrates was killed by the ‘spiritual’.

                No he wasn’t. He was killed by nationalist thugs who were angry he was poisoning the youth against nationalism. There was nothing spiritual at all about the people who killed Socrates. They killed him for entirely worldly and nationalistic reasons.

                I just don’t see the modern Gaia movement as any thing other than radical spiritualism embedded into a political movement.

                You are confusing romanticism with spiritualism. There is no spiritualism there. Sure, they have romantic and irrational views of nature, but ultimately there is no spiritual world for the environmentalist. There is only this one and meaning in life is measured by your effect in it.

                1. Duh, what’s a spirit?

        2. Which people claim to be atheists? Once again you are painting with an awfully broad brush. There are huge numbers of religious people who support this stuff. I don’t know why you would think that it is a substitute for rather than an adjunct to religiosity. And there really just aren’t that many actual atheists about. I think it is probably true that most atheists buy into the AGW alarmism. And it does function as something akin to a religion for some of them. But that doesn’t mean that climate alarmists are mostly atheists.

  14. a sexual harassment scandal

    Well, to be fair, he *said* that for him “the survival of all species … is more than a mission.”

    1. “Hey honey, let’s get together to ensure the survival of the human race.’

      1. “Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’

        Pachauri makes Dan T look like a master writer.

        1. Is it horrible that I thought he would have to stare at the bindi in order to increase his time? I think of it as the indian equivalent of thinking about baseball.

    2. I favor extinction of several species. For example, smallpox and fire ants.

  15. Ron,

    When someone calls a field of science their “religion”, saying he lacks objectivity is a bit of an understatement. That is like saying “hopefully the next Malaysian Air Flight 370 will have better navigation skills.

    And what makes you think there is any chance the next guy won’t be as bad or worse? At this point it no longer matter what your or my opinion of the science is. The people who do the science are no longer trustworthy and thus no judgement on its value can be made. These people leave the world no choice but to ignore the entire field.

    1. The guy they appointed to head the IPCC is one of Pachauri’s subordinates.

      It will continue to be like that outfit that seeks to demonstrate all modern science was predicted in the Koran that was active around 2008 or so (my google-fu has failed me and I can not find it). The islamic guys would interview physicists and biologists etc with questions designed to elicit answers that could then be mapped to particular sayings in the Koran. Eventually the word got around as to what they were doing, and people stopped talking to them.

      The islamic guys’ claim of being scientific was really a way to increase the authority of their religion.

      The cultists running the IPCC are similarly motivated.

      1. This is going to go on for decades. They are never going to give up their beliefs. It is too profitable and they have too much of their self image invested in them. This will never end in one big implosion. It will instead slowly fade away as the decades roll on and it becomes increasingly undeniable how wrong it is. They have such a hold on science and the media and such a symbiotic relationship with so many rent seekers, even absolute scientific proof they are wrong will stop them. Instead, time itself will have to erode the movement away. And that will take a while.

        1. So like Marxism then.

          1. Yes, except that unlike Marxism, which will never really die, this will some day die and the various Marxists and fellow travelers desperate for a higher meaning in life who have latched onto this will latch onto something else.

            The best way to fight this may be to think up a less damaging belief to compete with AGW. You are never going to change these people but you might be able to distract them with less damaging beliefs.

          2. So like Marxism every other religion then.

            FIFY

            1. No Big T, you misunderstand both AGW and religion. AGW is crude materialism.

              1. Drive by troll, John.

                1. If you don’t understand religion Hetero, you are not of much use in this conversation. You don’t have to believe in a religion to understand it. And not believing is no excuse for ignorance.

                  1. I was just saying don’t waste your time. He doesn’t care.

              2. John, belief in the unprovable, unseen, unmeasurable is a pretty good indicator of religion. By that measure AGW is a religion. Religion need not have gods or God, simply supernatural effects.

                1. The thing is that AGW is the sort of thing that is, in principle provable (to scientific standards) and measurable and seen. I don’t think it is adequately proven or measured at this point to draw any firm conclusions. That doesn’t mean it is impossible to do so. So I would say it is similar, but distinct from religious belief. The existence of God or an afterlife is unprovable. Climate science is just not very well developed yet.

        2. You have to wonder what would happen for these clowns to admit that The Apocalypse isn’t upon us and that they’ve been conning us the entire time, with an army of chattering, useful idiots to back them up.

          Another Ice Age? How many of these clowns will still be preaching the Gospel as an advancing glacier buries them?

          1. They will of course assure us that the advancing glacier is due to AGW, but the deniers just wouldn’t listen!

            1. WE DIDN’T LISTEN!!

    2. This

      When you have a cause that you believe in and you let it get taken over by a bunch of greedy snake oil salesmen, far left radicals, and tin pot dictators seeking hand outs, that’s not anyone else’s fault. It’s yours to deal with and if you don’t, then don’t go crying when everyone starts dismissing you as a bunch of crackpots.

      1. There is no point in even trying to debate the issue anymore. Its clear they don’t want a debate and won’t listen to any amount of facts or reason contrary to their beliefs. I applaud the scientific people out there doing the grunt work of disproving this nonsense. That needs to be done. At the layman level, the best thing to do is just dismiss them. I am tired of debating an issue where the people on the other side have no interest in anything except proselytizing.

        1. Someone should compile a list of the people who were high profile in the AGW craze, who have since jumped ship and distanced themselves from it. There’s quite a few of them and they had a lot to say.

          The other thing is, I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a little intelligence, that we are entering a cooling period, it’s pretty noticeable the last few years. I think we’ve pretty much broken every cold record here in Baltimore going back since record keeping began, more than 100 years ago.

          This reminds me of the mid 70s when they were declaring a new ice age. Some scientists are saying this could last 30-40 years. I sure hope not. But it almost seems like some sort of divine judgement.

          1. I’ve been asking for an index of AGW predictions, similar to the Warm List made of the years, because these predictions have close to a 100% failure rate.

            It shouldn’t be too hard for someone with access to the right media databases, like Lexis. It would be devastatingly educational and useful to use so you can point and laugh at these people.

            Not that it would make much of difference, though. Paul Ehrlich still has a robust career with a 100% miss rate. True Believers will never give up the faith.

              1. Tony says that list does not exist.

          2. In one of the winters in the mid-70s, I think 76-77, it got so cold that the Chesapeake froze over as far out as the Bay Bridge allowing people to walk to the Eastern shore. I didn’t believe it until I googled it and saw the pictures.

            I think you are right. It is clearly getting cooler. I also don’t trust these people not to lie about the temperatures and try to claim it is warming even if the actual data says its cooling.

            1. Citation please.

              1. “Let the strong wind of fish farming blow across the country!”

              2. Citation, as requested.

                Tony, I even see your face at the right of the photo.

                1. The back end is Tony’s face.

              3. Give it up Tony. Even you don’t believe it anymore. You are going to have to find a different pretense for destroying capitalism.

                Try the inequality angle. That is sure to work……

                1. I don’t need to buy into history’s greatest scientific hoax to have an opinion about the flaws of capitalism.

                  You however will never not worship at its alter.

            2. It was 76-77 and 77-78.

              I lived in Cincy. The Ohio froze over so hard that people were driving pickup trucks across!

            3. I was a teenager in southwestern Illinois (just across from St.Louis) in the 70s, and the Mississippi would freeze over in the winter. At least once a winter some dumb teenage kid would get killed trying to walk across because the thickness of the ice of course wasn’t uniform.

              It would get ridiculously hot in the summer too. I think that experience is why I’m always puzzled by people who say “it’s so cold” when the temperature hits 30 or “it’s so hot” when the temperature hits 90; those temps just don’t seem extreme to me.

        2. “I applaud the scientific people out there doing the grunt work of disproving this nonsense”

          I’m a little pissed at all the scientific people who are letting their work get distorted for the greater good.

          For example, the infamous 97% consensus figure. It’s a bullshit statistic and an obvious one and yet few of the hundreds of researchers who’s work didn’t support the claim and yet were cited objected.

          FYI, the 97% figure was crafted by claiming that “97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”. It got that figure by finding that only 3% of papers strongly disagreed with AGW.

          Of course the majority of the papers were actually neutral, but those were all included in the 97% figure.

          1. To be fair, I original wrote ” and yet none of the hundreds of researchers who’s work didn’t support the claim and yet were cited objected.”. But in looking up the method I found at least some scientists/researchers did object.

            “To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

            Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

            Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

            “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.”

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja…..us-claims/

          2. I mean the skeptics. And yes, the scientists who are standing silently or going along with this out of self interest are the real villains here. Science only helps society if people trust it. Once you destroy that trust and belief you slip back into a dark age. By politicizing and lying about this, they are making people distrust all science. The anti-vaccine bullshit didn’t come out of nowhere. It is the result of about thirty years of scientists letting their work and credibility be used for political purposes in this and a lot of other things.

    3. The one true religion is whatever jackass rightwing bloggers fill your head with. Let’s just ignore all research into the effects of radically altering the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, because for some reason this field of science is completely incapable of behaving itself. Not just one team, but the entire fucking planet of scientists. Ignoring all research is the clearly logical course of action.

      1. Tony,

        Thanks for providing an example of what we are talking about. You are an idiot and a fanatic. It is a waste of time debating with people like you. So, the answer is to tune you out. And that is what the world is increasingly doing. Global warming is at the bottom of any priority list whenever the public is polled on what they consider the most pressing issues facing the world.

        The more shrill and ridiculous you become, the less people will pay any attention to you. And that is most certainly a good thing.

        Fewer and fewer people care about your religion Tony. It is just nonsense and everyone has real problems to worry about.

        1. I realize that rightwingers approach the world by deliberately tuning out facts they don’t like. It’s why you can’t govern worth a shit and start wars based on lies and teach children that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

          It’s just so rare to get one of you fucking morons to be so explicit about it to yourselves.

          1. Tuning out facts like actual temperature measurements over the past 18 years that the AGW models failed to predict and that therefore have falsified the AGW/CO2 hypothesis? Like that?

            The projection and lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

            1. But that’s not true and it doesn’t become true through repetition. Go read something other than rightwing bullshit that confirms what you want to believe.

          2. Tony, the Bible says Jesus rode in on a D. Here is pictoral proof.

            1. Jesus preferred Plymouths. He drove the moneychangers out of the temple in His Fury.

          3. As if Democrats did not promote US involvement in WW I, WW II, Viet Nam, Iraq, Libya, and Syria based upon lies.

            Come on, all war-mongering politicians rely on lies. This has been observed since antiquity.

      2. Let’s just ignore all research into the effects of radically altering the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans…

        No one can argue with common sense conservation and intelligent approaches to sustainable methods that produce quantifiable results. Both government and corporations have a sordid history of polluting all sorts of natural spaces. No one has a right to dump filth into the environment that causes sickness and disease. Problem-solvers and radicals should attack specific serious problems like this and bring about change to be sure.

        However, humans did not smash the dinosaurs into oblivion. Humans did not create the ice age which reshaped entire continents. Humans do not cause solar radiation and sun flares. Humans do not cause volcanoes to create air pollution and islands. The list goes on.

        Humans are a yocto-blip on the radar of time and when certain corners of science equates humanity with the staggeringly destructive forces of nature, globally and beyond, I am simply bewildered.

        1. You are entitled to all the awe at our ability to alter our environment you want. But the fact is we are causing the next great global environmental crisis, and it’s even on a faster pace than past ones, which over thousands of years (instead of decades) at least gave life a chance to adapt.

      3. This is fascinating. A reductio straw herring. Tony’s fallacies have finally coalesced into one huge meta-fallacy.

    4. In case you missed it above, here is the next guy.

  16. Here’s hoping that the next leader of the IPCC will welcome scientific criticism and emphasize information and decisionmaking transparency.

    Who the fuck are you kidding? This was never about science to begin with, but with politicians and activists co-opting science to enact an unrelated agenda.

    1. yes. this was the most optimistic thing I’ve ever read in my entire life.

      Here’s an idea, what about a non scientist in charge? I mean, we have civilian oversight of the military, what about layman oversight of the IPCC?

      Maybe a certain science journalist? HMMMM…?

      1. You mean like this guy:

        http://i.imgur.com/HuxIcLQ.gif

        I’m not sure it’s going to improve anything. But maybe he won’t molest anyone.

      2. How about a Sudanese bureaucrat?

    2. The IPCC is the scientific advisory organization for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

      By design, the IPCC is supposed to generate scientific information that supports the UNFCCC.

      It is impossible for the IPCC to consider scientific criticism of the CAGW hypothesis. To do so would threaten the expansion of the UNFCCC. Bureaucratic organizations, especially those of the UN, are highly sensitive to threats to their survival.

  17. Why don’t you just put her in charge?

    1. @spencer

  18. I mean, what’s the big deal about getting a little rapey with a colleague WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO PREVENT THE RAPE OF THE WHOLE WORLD?!

  19. Only pundits and bloggers should talk about policy, and the only policy worth talking about is “do nothing and pretend like there is nothing happening.”

    1. Re: Tony,

      Only pundits and bloggers should talk about policy[…]

      Apparently, not enough for the holders of the One True Faith at the IPCC.

      do nothing and pretend like there is nothing happening

      Not wanting to make everyone poor at bayonet point in the name of Gaia is my kind of doing nothing.

      1. The only faith-based thing going on here is your science denying horseshit.

        1. Re: Tony,

          The only faith-based thing going on here is your science denying horseshit.

          Shaggy just DENIED science – he called it a religion. He did, publicly.

          And yet you have the gall to accuse me of being anti-science? You’re a deluded fool.

          1. Yes, you put your ridiculous, childish antigovernment dogma over science, and that makes you the fool, and it makes you the one who deserves never to be listened to.

            Replace religion with “life’s calling” and you’ll appreciate what he was trying to say. And shame on Ronald Bailey for baiting you idiots with this empty crap.

            1. Annnnd…here comes ‘Tony’ to prove my point!

            2. Re: Tony,

              Yes, you put your ridiculous, childish antigovernment dogma over science

              Your statement doesn’t make sense. How is it that one has to be pro-government in order to be pro-science? Can’t one be an anarchist and be pro-science?

              Your personal problems with logic keep popping up in your statements, Tony. You continue to conflate the policy prescriptions with scientific knowledge, arguing that the belief in the effectiveness of one means ipso facto a belief in the validity of the other.

              1. ‘Tony’ is just a dishonest, ignorant, leftist shill.

          2. I tend to think ‘Tony’ is more dishonest than deluded, but of course the two are not mutually exclusive.

    2. “Only pundits and bloggers should talk about policy, and the only policy worth talking about is “do nothing and pretend like there is nothing happening.””

      That’s a pathetic straw man argument. Criticizing the head of the IPCC for admitting that AGW is a religion to him and asking for a replacement who’s not obviously pro-AGW isn’t the same as ignoring a dire situation.

      First, because society is currently spending a lot of resources on renewable power and electric cars, which are certainly resulting in less atmospheric carbon than otherwise. So we already are doing quite a lot.

      And secondly, because AGW is a theory not a fact and asking for greater (and much higher) expenditures on an unproven theory, which has failed to match the data for over a decade is a stupid idea.

      1. Re: JWatts,

        First, because society is currently spending a lot of resources on renewable power and electric cars, which are certainly resulting in less atmospheric carbon than otherwise.

        Actually, neither do shit to mitigate emissions (electric cars are WORSE when it comes to emissions than gas-operated vehicles.) But the little red Marxians already know this and they know that it is impossible to achieve total substitution of the population’s energy needs with renewables because nobody can break the fucking LAWS OF PHYSICS.

        They KNOW this, JWatt – which is why their policies are nothing more than shady and dishonest attempts at curbing capitalism. That’s all. It’s all a sham. They couldn’t care less about poor people or Gaia.

        1. “Actually, neither do shit to mitigate emissions (electric cars are WORSE when it comes to emissions than gas-operated vehicles.) ”

          Sorry OldMexican but you’re wrong about that.

          ICE (internal combustion engines) aren’t nearly as efficient as large electrical generation turbines. And yes there are losses in sending power down the line, but there are greater losses in distributing petroleum.

          All those tankers delivering gasoline and diesel require vast amounts of fuel in their own right. Which adds up to considerably greater cost than the cost of transmitting electricity down power lines.

          Electrical cars are both more efficient (assuming modern battery technology) and pollute less (assuming that your power grid is less than 50% coal).

          The future is electric passenger vehicles, natural gas powered long haul trucks and petroleum powered air craft. And since, electric passenger vehicles will be the cheapest option both to manufacture and to operate within the next 20 years, the market will quickly reduce the ICE passenger component to enthusiasts who want a niche vehicle.

          1. Re: JWatt,

            ICE (internal combustion engines) aren’t nearly as efficient as large electrical generation turbines.

            The energy transfer from steam to motion is more efficient in a turbine than the conversion in an internal combustion engine, of course, but you are forgetting one thing: the internal combustion engine transforms the chemical energy in gasoline to motion directly, whereas you still have to generate the steam through heat transfer, which means burning fuel. Also, you only burn the fuel you need to move around – a couple of hours a day, whereas an electric car has to tether itself to electrical production for SEVERAL hours while the batteries charge. The important consideration is how much of emissions is emitted during the operation of the vehicle, and charging an electric car is PART of its operation, whether you like it or not.

            Maybe if nearly all power plants were fueled by fission nuclear reaction, you could then say that the amount of emissions is higher in internal combustion engines but that is not yet the case.

            1. “but you are forgetting one thing”

              I’m not forgetting anything. The total thermodynamic process for energy production for a large scale steam plant is drastically better than for a small ICE.

              “has to tether itself to electrical production for SEVERAL hours while the batteries charge.”

              Well sure, and I charge my phone every night, but so? It’s not like it costs more energy, it just takes a smaller flow for a longer period of time. Which is a negative of electric cars, but doesn’t effect the overall energy efficiency.

              ” and charging an electric car is PART of its operation, whether you like it or not.”

              Huh? I was never denying it. It was assumed in my original comment, because only someone ignorant of the process would think otherwise.

        2. They couldn’t care less about poor people

          Yeah, if by that you mean they wish more of them would drop dead sooner.

      2. Anyone with the remotest interest in honesty can understand the sentiment behind the religion comment. He did not mean to say “I believe in AGW regardless of evidence” and you should damn well know it.

        There is no scientific debate on the facts you want to be in dispute. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with respect to “not matching the data.” The data is the data. It informs the theory. And the greenhouse effect theory has been accepted by schoolchildren since long before the denier industry came into being. I don’t know how to convince you of facts, but Google is a great place for you to start if you have any actual interest in them.

        1. Anyone with the remotest interest in honesty

          Well, ‘Tony’ is disqualified, then.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Anyone with the remotest interest in honesty can understand the sentiment behind the religion comment.

          No question he was being honest about it. You’re the one doing all the obfuscations.

          There is no scientific debate on the facts you want to be in dispute.

          First of all, that is not true – there is ALWAYS scientific debate (people who want to ignore how the scientific process works prefer to think in absolutes.) What has been concluded so far is that AGW is real, but when it comes to Climate Change (supposedly related), there IS a VERY HARD DEBATE.

          Only among the true believers like Shaggy and people of his ilk (like you) AGW and Climate Change are completely related phenomena leaving no room for alternative hypothesis. That is UNSCIENTIFIC THINKING.

          But leaving that aside, the biggest complaint from scientists is the way that policy prescriptions have been peddled under the guise of curbing or stemming climate change, when there is no evidence that any of those policies will make a difference.

          1. What alternative hypothesis?

            1. Re: TOny,

              Solar activity, Albedo changes due to cloud coverage, the progressive change in the tilt of the Earth (the angle of “wobble”), carbon capture in the oceans, just to name a few.

            2. One obvious alternate hypothesis is that: Since Carbon in the atmosphere causes global warming on a decreasing logarithmic scale; that adding additional amounts into the atmosphere will have an insignificant effect on the average temperature of the planet’s atmosphere.

              1. Actually, that’s not so much an alternate hypothesis as the actual hypothesis.

                There’s also a saturation effect, that kicks in at something like 1,500 ppm IIRC. After that point more CO2 has no effect, the atmosphere has become opaque to the radiation that CO2 blocks.

              2. Actually, that “that adding additional amounts into the atmosphere will have an insignificant effect on the average temperature of the planet’s atmosphere” not merely a hypothesis, it is fact.

                1. Having less of an effect is pretty undisputed, the hypothesis is whether it’s insignificant or not.

        3. And the greenhouse effect theory has been accepted by schoolchildren since long before the denier industry came into being.

          Exxcept that’s not what your cult is claiming Tonykins, and you should know it.

          Your cult believes that with the increased warming due to CO2 that there would be increased transfer of methane and water vapor, which would enhance the effect of the CO2.

          THAT HASN’T HAPPENED!!!!!!

          Moreover, the Earth’s climate has other feedback mechanisms that are clearly operating that we don’t understand. Consider Eschenbach’s hypothesis that thunderstorms act as a sort of temperature relief valve. That’s an example of a mechanism which acts very nonlinearly; when temperature hits a certain threshold over a liquid surface, a thunderstorm forms, and more CO2 would simply lead to temperatures staying the same but thunderstorms forming earlier maybe 5 minutes earlier than they otherwise would. Now Eschenbach’s hypothesis is just that; a hypothesis describing a plausible mechanism.

          1. Given that the Earth’s climate has shown itself to be far more stable than the simulations of it predict, there is at least one stabilizing mechanism in place, most likely more than one, and probably nobody has actually formulated all the mechanisms in action.

            You say it’s science, that the data is the data and the theory is the theory. But the data is poor prior to the satellite age, and the theories are even poorer.

            1. Well said, tarran.

            2. Yes, tarran. And the most likely buffering system is water. Clouds reflect more radiation (visible and some IR) away from earth during the day than they hold in at night (only IR since no visible light is emitted by earth at night). When it gets cold water condenses out and there is less cloud cover, allowing more solar radiation to reach the ground, heating the earth. When it gets warm cloud cover increases increasing the earth’s reflectivity, cooling the earth. A great buffering system.

              What happened to Venus? It appears to have lost its water due to intense radiation that breaks down water into H2 and O2, and H2 readily escapes. The leftover O2 oxidized everything it could, hence the high CO2 and SOx concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 is a result of Venus hot temperatures (which it enhances), not the prime cause.

          2. Ceteris paribus, surface temperature will increase with an increase of CO2 up to a limit. However, ceteris doesn’t stay paribus in a chaotic system like an entire planet with an atmosphere and oceans.

      3. “First, because society is currently spending a lot of resources on renewable power and electric cars, which are certainly resulting in less atmospheric carbon than otherwise. So we already are doing quite a lot.”

        Uh…no. They cause more atmospheric carbon than otherwise. A high mileage gasoline car causes orders of magnitude less atmospheric carbon than an electric car.

      4. AGW is actually a pretty sound theory. There really is not much debate about it.

        That may sound surprising, but it is true. For example, watch this starting at 13:20. Here, one of the persons most reviled by the alarmist community address a convention of CAGW skeptics. None at the convention deny either climate change or AGW.

        The only disagreement is about CAGW, and whether it justifies an unelected world governing body charged with central planning of energy, massive wealth transfers, and subordination of individual liberty and markets.

  20. Its funny that with all the complaints here about how climate change is all a hoax, and the IPCC is the main part of that hoax, you quote IAC and their recommendations toward improving all the work IPCC does. As you evidently know, they made public their criticisms and expect those improvements to be implemented. By the way, do you know why the IAC reviewed the IPCC? Because the IPCC requested it.

    Not much of any attempt to perpetrate a hoax on anyone.

    Interesting to note that for all of those allegations that science has been bought off, we did in fact this week have proof of “science” hiding the fact that money may have played a role in its findings.

    Oh wait, that in fact turned out to be Willie Soon, a scientist constantly trotted out by deniers as pure skepticism in action.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..oil-money/

    To be honest, I could not care less…I would not have expected any less from oil, and it doesn’t mean it had any influence on his findings. His work will stand or fall on its own merits. Should he have revealed his sources? Yes.

    But I know this, if that was a scientist who had taken money from green energy and he/she did not reveal it, you would have been all over it, just like you are about allegations toward the head of IPCC.

    But in this case of possible conflict of interest in science? The silence was deafening…at least here it was.

    1. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Its funny that with all the complaints here about how climate change is all a hoax,

      Update yourself, Jackass – it’s not a hoax, it’s a religion. Shaggy just told us it is. Is he a liar, all of a sudden?

      By the way, do you know why the IAC reviewed the IPCC? Because the IPCC requested it.

      Who cares?

      But I know this, if that was a scientist who had taken money from green energy and he/she did not reveal it, you would have been all over it,

      We’re all over it because little red Marxians like you were all over the same issue when skeptics were pointing out towards the obvious flaws in the predictive powers of the climate models. Don’t piss on my leg and call it rain, dude.

      1. You indeed are the perfect spokesman for deniers…keep it up.

        1. Re: Jackass Ass,

          You indeed are the perfect spokesman for deniers

          If anybody else needs more evidence of how Climate Change is a religion, go no further than reading Jackass’ accusation:

          “Non-believer! Denier of the One True Faith!”

    2. “Its funny that with all the complaints here about how climate change is all a hoax, and the IPCC is the main part of that hoax,”

      I don’t claim it’s a hoax. I claim that the predictions of catastrophe are over stated and the AGW modeling has failed to match the temperature data for over a decade.

      Jackand Ace, why are you so keen on denying the temperature data?

      1. Good for you that you don’t think its a hoax, but you would be in the minority among commenters here.

        What temperature data are keen on? This?

        http://commons.wikimedia.org/w…..nomaly.svg

        No denial from me, there it is.

        1. Let’s combine the temperature graph with the model data to analyze the predictive quality of the models.

          http://drtimball.com/wp-conten…..e-Data.jpg
          We can see that the 1990 models overstate predicted temperature.

          Now let’s look at the updated models from 2007. How did they do?
          http://beyondthespin.weebly.co…..0_orig.png
          It’s clear that these overstate the temperature data also.

          1. So, we admit that the earth is warming? Good.

            Now, as to the models…not sure where your data came from, but according to a study in Nature, the IPCC models have been accurate and well within an acceptable range, including some that were LOWER that what was observed.

            http://www.sciencerecorder.com…..tudy-says/

            “The team tested climate models by seeing how temperature predictions compared with what really happened, so they ran 114 model simulations to compare it with an assessment report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to see if they consistently overestimated the amount of warming that actually occurred. The models performed well, producing a range of predictions, but ones that were always within the range of the actual temperature for all 15-year periods going back to 1900.

            Also, even when models missed the mark, they were both high and low, rather than one or the other, dismissing the idea that the models are biased toward higher temperatures.”

            Dated February 5 of this year.

            1. Really, your link shows no actual chart and no links to the actual results.

              Furthermore, there’s no indication which models they used and there are literally dozens of actual links that overlay the predictions in the IPCC result itself with actual Temperature data that show the models over predict.

              1. Here you go, the actual study found in Nature, with attendant graphs, etc.

                http://www.nature.com/articles…..Z1LqSGqrmZ

                Now, care to show any detail on your source?

                1. “Here you go, the actual study found in Nature, with attendant graphs, etc.”

                  Good let’s look at the study. Oh wait, it turns out after reading the actual article that this doesn’t address the predictive ability of the IPCC models.

                  I’m guessing you didn’t read your own link?

                  Directly from your linked article:

                  “First, we note that, owing to quasi-random internal climate variability, the difference between observed and simulated trends likewise contains quasi-random contributions. To avoid focusing too strongly on the particular period 1998?2012, which contains some climate extremes relevant for GMST19?21 and is hence unlikely to be reproduced in a simulation containing quasi-random contributions, we analyse GMST trends of a certain length for the entire period 1900?2012″

                  So their entire study is to check that the model correctly matched historical data. Well of course they do. That’s how the models were built in the first place. Nobody fucking disputes that!

                  The question is whether the models that the IPCC are using correctly predict future temperatures. And they have failed to do that for the last 10+ years.

                  1. That in fact proves the accuracy of models…whether or not their assumptions fit in with what actually occurred in the past before IPCC, AND whether or not those predictions from IPCC were in any way accurate.

                    And they were.

                  2. Look again at the graphs after the citations, the first ones marked a and b. Note that it measures, in addition to the past, the models accuracy up to the year 2012. It is still within limits.

                    They say this:

                    “Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows NO systematic bias against the observations. Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST?with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability?and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends. The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be UNFOUNDED.”

                    Note they considered all 15 year trends, including 1998 through 2012.

                2. from the first sentence of the abstract:

                  “observations suggest a warming hiatus”.

                  The paper purports to demonstrate that the hiatus does not invalidate the models. The null hypothesis is that the models are correct, and the conclusion is that the hiatus does not invalidate the models.

                  Well, of course not. But the burden of proof should be on the model, and the null hypothesis should be that the model does not correlate with the data during the hiatus period.

                  The paper demonstrates that the last 20 years does not prove the models wrong, but it does not demonstrate that the models are correct.

            2. Here’s an overlay showing literally dozen’s of IPCC models with actual temperature data for the Tropical Troposphere:

              http://goo.gl/lzjGyi

              Now, I grant you the Tropics are definitely the worst case for global warming models and the Polar regions are the best case. The Polar regions are the only areas that have warmed enough to still be in the model confidence interval.

            3. Worse than that JWatts, the link says:

              Also, even when models missed the mark, they were both high and low, rather than one or the other, dismissing the idea that the models are biased toward higher temperatures.

              The results show that while the IPCC model didn’t accurate predict the warming slowdown, it’s not meant to: its predictions are meant to identify a larger trend, not spot the occasional accelerations or slowdowns during that trend.

              The first sentence is a complete lie – all models predict temperatures that are high by at least 2 sigma as Christy showed.

              The second sentence merely says the models don’t work as they are used in all the predictions of doom and gloom, and that there is something else that is controlling the temperature that is not captured in the models (or else they would work).

              1. The authors may feel that the models are not supposed to predict, but James Hansen based his famous prediction of “monotonic decadal increases in temperature” on such models.

          1. Cherry picking and manipulating data is ok, as long as it’s climate science. You rednecks around here are just too dumb to understand that.

            That’s why we have Tony the rocket surgeon to help explain it.

    3. Conflicts of interest should always be considered, regardless of source, but as you point out, the work/data should be evaluated on its merits. What I find interesting is that the vast majority of the pro-AGW doesn’t seem to consider government funding a conflict of interest when the policies put forth as a result of these consistently failed apocalypse scenarios are always MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

      1. Not sure I can even respond to that, if you think all of science would respond to what government wants (in your mind) by falsifying their findings.

        Not every science organization that has weighed in on AGW gets government funding. You do know I hope that it would be absolutely impossible for an organization like American Geophysical Union to be constantly fooled, or even willing, to take part in such a hoax.

        1. Re: Jackass Ass,

          Not sure I can even respond to that, if you think all of science would respond to what government wants (in your mind) by falsifying their findings.

          Public Choice theory, Jackass? Scientists need to eat and are as self-interested as the rest of us mere mortals.

          Your thinking is that scientists are veritable angels. That’s called magical thinking.

          1. Lots of people have never heard of Lysenko.

        2. “…if you think all of science would respond to what government wants (in your mind) by falsifying their findings.”

          1. Governments and the governing class always try to accrete more power and control. If you don’t believe that, you have the whole of civilized history to examine.

          2. I do not think “all of science” would falsify their findings based upon the policy preferences of government and the governing class.

          3. Similarly, I do not think “all of science” would falsify their findings based upon the policy preferences of private industry.

          4. I am simply pointing out how tone deaf and/or hypocritical critics of privately-funded studies are when they fail to acknowledge government funding as a POTENTIAL source of corruption as well.

          Re #4, I probably shouldn’t be surprised by this since these people just take it on faith that everything that stems and flows from government is sacrosanct and beyond reproach.

          1. It is ironic that for decades (even over 100 years, in the case of National Academy of Sciences) all of these science organizations who have weighed in on all things scientific were in fact basically above reproach. That in general, it was accepted that they all were looking after the principle that science should be held to professional standards.

            But all of a sudden, on one issue (climate change), they not only are ignorant of proper scientific procedures, but they also must be willingly buying into what for all intents and purposes is a hoax. And it would be a hoax if you think government wants a particular answer, and science is willingly providing that answer regardless of facts.

            Every single major science organization that has weighed in on AGW says its a problem, man is at least partly responsible, and that we should do something about it because the risks might be large.

            1. Re: Jackass Ass,

              It is ironic that for decades (even over 100 years, in the case of National Academy of Sciences) all of these science organizations who have weighed in on all things scientific were in fact basically above reproach.

              They were not. Eugenics was a science. Prestigious thinkers and scientists subscribed to it.

              Scientists are as human as you and I, Jackass Ass. What should be judged is the validity of their claims on the merits of the claims, not on the credentials of the claim-makers. Thinking otherwise is a clear-cut example of Appeal to Authority.

              Every single major science organization that has weighed in on AGW says its a problem.

              Who cares? That’s OPINION. “Problem” is a subjective term.

              What scientific organizations have concluded is that AGW is real (and I believe it is). that’s an OBJECTIVE determination. But their OPINION on how “bad” it could be is not to be taken seriously, because it has NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT. What big of a problem it is will always be in the eye of the beholder. YOU may think it is a “problem”; I don’t. And, again, don’t bring credentials to the mix – Appeals to Authority are NOT valid arguments.

            2. 1. Way to completely ignore everything I just addressed, ie funding can serve as a corrupting agent regardless of source.

              2. Climate change is hardly the only issue where these kinds of problems arise. The greater the real or perceived economic or social impact, the more likely stuff like this happens because the stakes are greater (anti-GMO, anti-pesticide, recreational drug use, etc., not to mention countless examples in the social sciences).

              1. Way to advance a conspiracy theory on one group but then say it doesn’t necessarily apply to yours.

                I said above that Soon’s work should stand and fall on its own merits and that funding did not necessarily mean falsified results, and you agree.

                But here you think government funding (because they want to enslave the people I guess) negates what nearly all of science says.

                Care to offer any proof whatsoever that the scientific studies accepted by all science organization are wrong or falsified? You give Soon a pass, why not over 90% of all climate scientists? Care to show that each one of them got government funding?

                1. Jesus Christ, for the last time you fucking waterhead, I am saying that funding, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE, COULD BE a corrupting agent in science. The point is that you apparently refuse to acknowledge how public funding and the policy preferences of those that dole out said funding, COULD HAVE an impact on study outcomes or, more likely, the way scientists-turned-politicians obfuscate contrary results and mislead the public.

                  1. First, you would need to prove it…that the funding did in fact alter the results. Saying it could is about as meaningless as saying it could snow in July. You know what? Since you believe in a hoax, I’ll let the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry tell you what they think about such silliness. Founded in 1976 (well before a debate on climate change) by among others, Carl Sagan, it focused on fostering TRUE skepticism in science.:

                    http://www.csicop.org/news/sho…..t_skeptics

                    “Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

                    You and Inhofe are the same. Let me know when you have any proof whatsoever that science fabricated their findings on climate change…you have none.

    4. JackAss,

      AGW is not a hoax, but a failed hypothesis, ie one that has been tested and found wanting (although some of the true believers ie Al Gore are hoaxsters). The models relied upon by the AGW crowd have ALL been unable to predict the current temperature plateau and fail when extrapolated back in time. Or more generally, the CO2-driven models fail to predict ANY plateaus, eg 1940-1975, since CO2 levels have been continuously increasing.

      Thus, something else is far more important that CO2 in driving the earth’s climate. There is uncertainty about the driver(s), but the only model that does predict the current plateau is one that correlates with sunspots and the multidecadal ocean cycle.

      I have been active in alternate energy for 40 years and have reviewed numerous proposals during that time. The proposers follow the trendy rationales for their proposals. In the 70’s and 80’s energy independence and clean energy dominated. In the 90’s and early 00’s more economic issues and get out of the ME were popular. For the past 15 or so years global warming/CO2 mitigation has been the most popular excuse. These guys know what most reviewers want to hear and give it to them, complete with every buzzword that is trending because they want the money. It does not necessarily mean they believe their own BS.

  21. “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion…

    And just as much a fantasy as the rest of them.

    1. One thing to bear in mind.

      Pachauri got in trouble for mistreating women working at TERI, which he also headed.

      These guys are big proponents of the “sustainable growth” movement, and there was definitely an incestuous circle jerk of sorts, with IPCC producing reports promoting TERI goals, and TERI using the IPCC reports to give external authority to push forward their fundraising efforts.

      I suspect one of the reasons why the CAGW cultists spend so much time smearing people who disagree with their religion as being in the pocket of ‘fossil fuel interests’. is that they assume it must be true since they are in the pocket of people getting rich off the sustainability scam.

      1. How is tearing down a dilapidated barn built in the early 1900’s and then re-purposing the antique oak in that structure into something that can be enjoyed as flooring in modern home be considered a sustainability scam?

        How can recycling metals from thousands of motherboards (for example) be considered a sustainability scam?

        Why should legitimate sustainability science be scoffed at due to its minor association with progressive environmental schemes? Many areas of science overlap into the questionable or absurd.

        1. It’s not. Nor is it really what the sustainability movement is about.

          The sustainability movement posits that most human activity is unsustainable – and that the set of activities they promote are the set of sustainable alternatives.

          In short they are Malthusians with a new hip marketing brand.

          If the sustainability movement limited itself to the frugal acts you describe, I wouldn’t have any problems with them.

          Their attempts to create energy poverty by legislative fiat and thus to markedly increase my daughter’s chances of dying in childbirth that pisses me off.

    2. Agreed.

      Those three goals are vague and unscientific populous gobbledygook.

    3. It is much worse. No religion I am aware of claims to want to control and manage this world. Religions are a recognition of your inability to control this world and thus should focus on the next one. Be it Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism or even a good number of strains of Islam, the point is to change your inner life and prepare for the next world. It is the whole “will of God/Allah” or “loss of the self” or living by your “Dharma”.

      What makes this so insidious is that it is a religion without a God or any mandates on your inner life. It is entirely focused on controlling the world and those around you. You don’t obtain enlightenment or spiritual contentment. You obtain a sense of meaning and mission by controlling those around you and nature itself.

      In that sense, it is really just a fucked up form of materialistic Utopianism like Marxism. The mission of the believers is to usher in the new man made paradise on earth.

      1. “What makes this so insidious is that it is a religion without a God or any mandates on your inner life. It is entirely focused on controlling the world and those around you.”

        I think many environmentalists are focused on using the government to coerce behavior, and that is a problem.

        But not all environmentalists are like that. I’m not like that!

        I want to use capitalism and libertarianism and personal persuasion. The inner life you’re talking about is people’s own behavior and values. People pay more for hybrids than the fuel savings will justify.

        Because they care. Trying to get more people to care isn’t a problem. Using the government to force people who don’t care is a big problem.

        It’s like the First Amendment, as far as I’m concerned. People who treat environmentalism as something like a religion shouldn’t be allowed to use the government to inflict their religious beliefs on others–as in the establishment clause.

        But they should be free to practice their religion, otherwise, as they see fit–as in the free exercise clause.

        If you don’t litter, John, doesn’t that means we’re getting to you?

        1. Although I disagree with you that its a religion for anywhere near a majority of environmentalists, I agree with what you said above.

          Moe voices like yours would be welcomed. Admitting a problem, but debating solutions is the goal.

        2. I want to use capitalism and libertarianism and personal persuasion. The inner life you’re talking about is people’s own behavior and values. People pay more for hybrids than the fuel savings will justify.

          That is because you are not the kind of environmentalist I am talking about Ken. Moreover, what peace do you get out of driving a hybrid if I drive by in my V8 Mustang and undo all of the good your hybrid is doing? The only peace you get from driving he hybrid is contributing to making the world better. Sure, you are doing your part, but there has to be more than that. If you don’t do anything to stop me, you don’t achieve anything in this world and that defeats the entire purpose.

          There is no heaven or enlightenment to be obtained for driving a hybrid. The only rewards are from achieving something in this world. If you think there is something spiritual there, have fun with that. But that is not how environmentalists think. It is no different than Marxism in that the entire point is to change this world not change yourself.

          1. Funny story.

            A coworker of mine was filling up his Suburban at the gas station, and some Prius driver asks “How can you drive that…. that… thing?”
            He calmly replied “If we were to get into an accident, which vehicle would you rather be in?”
            She sputtered a bit but couldn’t respond.

            1. You should have also asked him how he lives with the toxic waste those batteries are going to produce once they wear out. And also have asked him why he would want to risk his children being exposed to acid and toxic fumes in the event of an accident.

              1. It was a coworker, not me. I can’t afford a Suburban’s gas bill.

              2. That’s a red herring. The toxic waste from modern lithium batteries is minor. They aren’t toxic. Hell people eat lithium as a diet/health supplement and a good chuck of the Texas ground water has high amounts of lithium.

          2. I hope the point is getting across that people caring about the environment isn’t a problem in itself.

            And when we treat everyone who cares about the environment the same way, we’re reenforcing the incorrect belief that capitalism and libertarianism doesn’t have anything to offer environmentalists.

            Property rights are actually one of the best possible solutions to our environmental problems. One of the reasons China is so polluted is because property rights are so muddled and so hard to defend in court, there, that hardly anyone can defend their property from government affiliated polluters.

            If you’ve paid attention to ongoing battles between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vs. The Sea Otters, the Bureau of Land Management vs. Wild Mustangs, or the National Park Service vs. the Wild Buffalo of Yellowstone, you might have noticed that the government does a terrible job of conservation. Those responsibilities would be much better served by private organizations funded by private donors who care–like the Nature Conservancy.

            The way to get the environmentalists to stop being so socialist isn’t for capitalists to rail against all environmentalists and deny their concerns. It’s to welcome them and show them the facts–that the biggest long term threat to the environment is socialism and the state.

            1. No Ken,

              It is not the caring about the environment that is the problem. It is the caring about the environment as an end in itself and at the exclusion of all other goods that is the problem.

              I consider myself a conservationist not an environmentalist. I want to conserve and respect the environment but as a competing interest to other goods not as a paramount interest.

            2. Environmentalism and socialism often go hand in hand. Tell them that private organizations can do a better job and they’ll go crazy because private organizations make evil profits. That’s why they want these things done by government. Not because government does a better job at it, but because no capitalists make evil profits when something is done by government.

              1. Show them the Nature Conservancy.

                Tell them about the Sea Otters of California.

                http://tinyurl.com/l4v6rwt

                The problem is not that there aren’t any government organizations protecting the wildlife and the environment in California.

                The problem is not that the Sea Otters aren’t protected by the Endangered Species Act!

                The problem is not that there aren’t enough Democrats in Sacramento or the White House.

                The problem is that the government has total sway over the sea otters habitat–and they’ve decided to protect the interests of the sea urchin industry.

                In other words, the purpose of the government isn’t to protect endangered species from industry–it’s to protect industry from an endangered species.

                Meanwhile, when sea otters gobble sea urchins like machines, it lets the kelp forests regrow–because sea urchins gobble the roots of giant sea kelp, and they’ve wiped out enough giant sea kelp that it wiped out biomass comparable in size to the forests of California going all the way up to Oregon.

                Do you have any idea what a carbon sink that was?

                http://tinyurl.com/kk8l8ct

                Government conservation is a hoax!

                Environmentalists will never hear the truth–because they think the only people who will tell them about it are hostile to their concerns.

      2. Continuing to pump 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere year after year is not the nonradical, default alternative. It is the most radical action of all. It just so happens to be the one favored by people who make a lot of money burning oil.

        1. You’re twisting the word “radical”.

          The default alternative can’t be radical if it doesn’t require any kind of change.

          1. When people don’t understand what’s happening, they look to the crowd for guidance.

            And when they are asked to explain why they are doing what they are doing, all they can do is motion to the crowd and explain they don’t want to be outliers.

          2. People who advocate the continued unchecked and unstudied alteration of the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans are the dangerous radicals, no matter how much money they have or how big their microphone. Returning to CO2 concentrations of the last million years is the conservative alternative. Sitting around doing nothing as your house burns is not actually doing nothing. It’s an active pro-burning-down policy.

            1. “People who advocate the continued unchecked and unstudied alteration of the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans are the dangerous radicals.”

              1) It isn’t “unstudied”.

              2) They aren’t radicals if they aren’t advocating any change.

              You’re insistence on calling them “radicals” is just a pathetic attempt to shift the perception of your own advocacy for radical change.

              And it discredits the movement every time you do something stupid and unsupportable like that.

              You want to talk about something unstudied?

              How much in GDP would we have to sacrifice before cutting back on fossil fuels would save the very first polar bear from climate change?

              Now there’s an unstudied question.

              You want the government to force people to make sacrifices to change things radically–and you don’t even have any idea how much of a sacrifice it will take to change them.

              That’s radical. You’re advocating radical change without any regard for the economic consequences to the people making the sacrifices. And every time you do that, you set the environmentalist movement back another inch.

              1. They aren’t radicals if they aren’t advocating any change.

                If there’s anything I like better than actually having a real conversation it’s pointless semantic debates. They are not advocating no change. They are advocating continuing to change the chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean on a vast and rapid scale.

                This will have the effect of seriously disrupting the natural habitat of human beings. Anyone who advocates for “doing nothing” is asking billions of people to alter their lives or displace themselves in some way. If policymakers had been listening to climate scientists 30 years ago, the affect on GDP (the most important thing in the world apparently) would be minimal, and people’s lives wouldn’t be negatively affected. They’d just be getting their power from clean and sustainable sources. As the experts like to say, the challenge is not technical, it’s political. And you are on the wrong side and you kind of deserve to burn in hell for that.

                1. This will have the effect of seriously disrupting the natural habitat of human beings.

                  Circular logic is circular.

                2. “If there’s anything I like better than actually having a real conversation it’s pointless semantic debates.”

                  The only person having a “pointless” semantic debate is you.

                  radical

                  adjective rad?i?cal \?ra-di-k?l\

                  : very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary

                  : very basic and important

                  : having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people

                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

                  You’re ascribing adjectives to people that they don’t apply to, and, in fact, the adjective you’re using only refers to you.

                  That isn’t pointless.

                  That’s what we’re talking about.

                  You’re claiming people are radical–when they’re not. That’s the point.

                3. Radical change is for the nitrogen content of air to decrease from 780860 ppm to 780800 ppm in a century, and for the oxygen content to decrease from 209510 to 209500.

                  That’s really radical.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Continuing to pump 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere year after year is not the nonradical, default alternative. It is the most radical action of all.

          Radical means straying from the norm, Tony. Pumping CO2 is something humans DO. That’s the NORM. It’s not radical.

          You can’t even argue in the English language. Not only are you an ignoramus, you’re illiterate.

          1. Um, no, it’s not the norm. Are there scrambled eggs in place of your brain? At no point in the last 800,000 years, at least, have CO2 concentrations been as high as they are now, the increase happening just in the last 100 years or so.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Um, no, it’s not the norm

              What do you mean “it’s not the norm”? Of COURSE it’s the norm. It is what NORMALLY HAPPENS every day, every year.

              At no point in the last 800,000 years[…]

              Who cares about 800,000 years ago? It’s the norm NOW, because there are humans NOW.

              Thinking that human activity is some kind of catastrophic accident IS radical thinking, Tony. It is the stuff of sociopaths.

              1. This is the stupidest argument you’ve ever made and that is a fucking accomplishment.

                1. Excellent rebuttal, well thought out.
                  Moron.

              2. What do you mean “it’s not the norm”? Of COURSE it’s the norm. It is what NORMALLY HAPPENS every day, every year.

                Yeah, that bugs me as well. I was actually shocked today when I heard a weather forecast that said that temperatures were going to be X off the average. I’m so used to saying “warmer than normal or colder than normal” that when they get it right it’s a shock.

        3. You ignorant douche. ALL CO2 comprises only 4 one hundredths of a percent of earth’s atmosphere. Man contributes a fraction of a tiny fraction to that number. I’m not surprised you also don’t understand things like math and scale.

          1. How incredible that the earth’s scientists haven’t considered this astonishing fact. You must contact them at once.

            1. They have, Tony. Not only that, your religion accepts these things as being given and focuses on positive feedbacks involving other gasses.

              John’s right: not only are you clueless about the science you are utterly clueless as to what your religion actually asserts.

          2. Of course he is ignorant. Like many religious people, Tony doesn’t even understand his own beliefs. He just know buzz words and tag lines that he recites to make himself feel good and feel like he is doing his part. CO2 is pollution is just a Nicene creed for people too simple minded and materialistic to understand the real one.

            1. Ignorant?

              Worse: He’s a creep who thinks humans are a pest.

              No, really: “Continuing to pump 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere year after year is not the nonradical, default alternative. It is the most radical action of all. It just so happens to be the one favored by people who make a lot of money burning oil.”

              That is what he SAID, above. He must realize that pretty much ALL people burn oil (or process oil) to survive.

              1. This is real monstrous evil comes from. It comes from the belief that you can control this world and those around you such that you can make your own paradise.

                AGW is a bit unique in one thing. Rather than getting people like Tony to think they are bringing on paradise, it convinces them that they are adverting disaster. The effect, however, is just the same; to convince people that any means, no matter how evil, is justified and achieving the desired ends. Tony thinks he is saving the world Mexican, what are a few million or even billion lives compared with saving the world?

              2. And we’re all culpable. Particularly those of us in wealthy countries who burn most of the oil. I’m sorry this state of affairs does not present an anarchistic solution–but that’s your problem.

                1. And the fact that you would effectively end all hope of economic progress for developing world countries and the resulting increases in health, quality of life and “surplus” wealth? Christ, Tony, I would think at least the last point would be attractive to you so you and your ilk could scramble to confiscate it and distribute it as you see fit.

                  1. Being that Tony doesn’t understand shit about economics, it’s no surprise that he champions policies that would bring economic ruin.

                2. What do you propose burning instead of oil? Because that is the choice. You cannot simply get rid of oil cpnsumption without replacing it with sonething without impoverishing and killing large numbers of people, and right now, those somethings are likely to be less practical and efficient than oil.

                  1. Religious environmentalists want to impoverish and kill large numbers of people. And I mean large numbers of people. Billions.

                  2. Lots of environmentalists seem to prefer burning coal to provide electricity to charge their electric cars.

                    However, they fantasize about charging their cars from solar plants after they get home from work.

        4. Well, we can’t run our cars on plutonium, in case you have not noticed.

  22. Here’s hoping that the next leader of the IPCC will welcome scientific criticism and emphasize information and decisionmaking transparency.

    ?
    When you wish upon a side of beef,
    soon will come an end to all your grief!
    ?
    But if you’ve been mean or kinda bad
    I will knock out all your teeth!
    ? ?

  23. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with treating environmentalism like a religion or doing environmentalism as political advocacy–it’s just trying to do either one simultaneously as a scientist that’s the problem.

    I think the environmentalists might get more traction if they stopped masquerading as scientists.

    Just like Christianity gets more traction when they talk more about “do unto others” than they do when they’re talking about how the dinosaurs were the spawn of Cain and fallen angels.

    1. They can’t do that Ken. Metaphysical religions offer inner peace and a new inner life. This is a materialistic religion. There is no inner peace or contentment provided by environmentalism. Its entire appeal consists of the meaning you derive from changing and controlling the material world. An adherent of a metaphysical religion can change his inner life and live as an example to others content in the knowledge that he will be rewarded in the next world for the way he lives regardless of what actual effects it has in this world.

      An environmentalist can’t do that. The purpose is not to set the example. The purpose is to achieve results and help usher in paradise in this world. So they can’t call themselves a religion and live by example hoping everyone follows. The point is to get everyone to follow. How you live is incidental.

      Asking an environmentalist to call his beliefs a “religion” is like asking a Marxist to do so. It defeats the entire purpose of the ideology and the reason for believing in the first place.

      1. I don’t know that every religion necessarily promotes inner peace, but I think there people who get a sense of something when they feel like they’re living in harmony with nature.

        No doubt, if environmentalism is like a religion, it’s a still developing religion. It’s more like a religious belief.

        My grandmother lived to be almost a hundred. She became a vegetarian of conscience at a tender age–like seven years old. Asked the parents where “chicken” came from–and they told her they came from the chicken coop. She was horrified. This would have been around 1900.

        As she grew older, she grounded her beliefs in the Bible. Adam and Eve were supposed to take care of the animals, you see. That’s our job on earth. God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to wear–because of their sin. God made people sacrifice a lamb–so they would realize the results of their evil.

        Her beliefs weren’t actually a religion unto themselves, but her beliefs were attached to her own religion–except for the “begats”, I think she had the whole Bible Memorized.

        There are numerous other religions that promote living in harmony with nature. It’s not a big step to take.

        1. I don’t know that every religion necessarily promotes inner peace,

          I can’t think of one that doesn’t. That is the entire point of religion; to provide people comfort and a way to deal with the fact that this world is so uncontrollable and so unjust so often. Things like environmentalism and Marxism differ because they are materialistic. There is no spiritual life or anything beyond this world. So the only meaning to be found is changing and controlling this world.

          but I think there people who get a sense of something when they feel like they’re living in harmony with nature.

          Sure people for whatever reason desire the spiritual and something beyond this world. So they often import their spiritualism into otherwise materialistic beliefs.

          Even the people you describe, however, are still materialistic. Sure they get a nice feeling from “communing with nature” and it satisfies their spiritual cravings. There is however still nothing beyond nature. And their life still has no meaning beyond it. So they can never be content just communing with nature the way a monk can be content meditating or praying. They have to protect that nature and keep it in its pristine state. And that means controlling this world. They still are tied to this world and get their meaning and place in it by what they do in this world not the next.

    2. This is a global environmental emergency, and the longer unscrupulous, amoral politicians, industry hacks, and propagandists throw wrenches into the debate by making it about whether facts are real or whether “environmentalists” have an agenda, the longer mitigating actions are delayed, and the more costly and disruptive those actions will have to be. The longer we wait, the more pissed off libertarians are going to be about the necessary actions. I think all of you should consider that point.

      1. OMAGERD!!!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING QUICKLY, BEFORE THE LACK OF WARMING BECOMES TOO SUSTAINED AND OBVIOUS TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF IMPOSING OUR BULLSHIT “SOLUTIONS”!!11!!!!!

        1. What lack of warming? I want a fucking link. Just show me where you get your information so I can laugh at it.

          1. What lack of warming? I want a fucking link.

            Of course! Here you go.

            1. That does not show a lack of warming.

              1. It does since 1998. I guess you can’t read or understand graphs, either.

                1. Are you saying the line is flat or going down past 1998? Because that’s clearly not true. Or are you trying to say that an average starting with a large el nino year (can’t imagine why you’d start there) appears flat? Because that’s not what you said. You said there’s been no warming since 1998. That graph does not show that.

                  1. It’s okay ‘Tony” I get it, you’re an idiot, it was wrong of me to expect anything else of you.

      2. This is a global environmental emergency,

        Yeah Tony, that is why not a fucking thing has changed in 30 years. Nothing. The climate is not appreciably different now than it was in 1979. There is still ice on the polls, it is still hot in the desert and there are still four seasons outside of the tropics.

        Tony, you are a fanatic and a moron. Go post this shit elsewhere. You are never going to convince anyone of anything here and you do nothing but give perfect examples of the kind of ignorance and fanaticism the people on this thread are pointing out.

      3. Tony, even if I assume your premises for the sake of argument that 1) bad shit is happening, 2) that bad shit is primarily caused by humans, you do realize that there is not one single study that shows that it is economically or scientifically feasible to even stop, much less reverse, the minuscule warming that has occurred, right? That is, unless you factor in a significant global population die-off.

        1. Many of Tony’s make believe buddies (I say make believe because Tony fancies himself as being among the elite totalitarians, when in fact, he’ll be one of the first to disappear when they finally win) have openly advocated for that. Tony thinks we should start the genocide with the white people. He said as much right here and cannot deny it since it’s still here on this site for everyone to read.

          1. Over a boozy brunch one day, the girlfriend of one of my best friends finally admitted to me upon pointed questioning that she did, in fact, want the global population reduced by 1/3 to 1/2. She is a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist. Despite this, I love her to death and promptly bought her another Bloody Mary for her honesty. You’d be hard-pressed to get folks to admit that as a tenet of their policy formula though.

            1. I guess a Bloody Mary is appropriate for a genocidal maniac who wants to eliminate billions of people.

              1. Hmmmm…the subconscious is a funny thing.

      4. “This is a global environmental emergency, and the longer unscrupulous, amoral politicians, industry hacks, and propagandists throw wrenches into the debate by making it about whether facts are real.”

        If the environment goes to hell, it will be because idiots like this said stupid shit like that–and highjacked the environmentalist movement for partisan reasons that have nothing to do with the environment.

        Tony (and people like him) are destroying the environment in this way.

        I hope more people realize that Tony is an idiot, and like all idiots, the only group of people he’s really speaking for is idiots.

  24. This is a global environmental emergency,

    When someone is this disconnected from reality, a meeting of the minds is almost impossible.

  25. It is my religion and my dharma.

    Sort of like tent revivals were the religion of Elmer Gantry.

  26. Tony seems angry. That’s typically what happens when you make fun of someones make believe prophets.

    Hey Tony, are you going to go all Islamofascist on us?

    1. Its just a matter of time.

      1. The left will go too far. It’s inevitable. It’s what they do. Just remember I said this first. The worst mistake they could possibly make right now would be to try fucking around with the internet.

        Also, just remember, the new rules for the FCC to ‘regulate’ the internet were written by a Democrat admninistration and voted on and passed on a straight party line vote by 3 Democrats. They are walking into a true political firestorm this time, and it is being openly championed by the only Democrat running for the 2016 POTUS election. When team blue were taken over by the left, they should have known by history, that it would be their Waterloo eventually.

        And I don’t think that 4 million new immigrants is nearly enough to save them from the wrath they are about to face.

        1. Leftists always go to far and disgrace themselves. Wherever they come to power one of two things happens. Either they totally disgrace themselves and are voted out of office or they are able to take over and use the power of the gun to stay in power over the objection of the public. No honest leftist government ever wins a fair election or stays in power by anything other than brute force.

          It appears that the US is going to get lucky. The progs overplayed their hand and have dropped the mask before they had control over elections such that they could keep the public from voting them out of power.

          The net neutrality thing is going to be very interesting. It is going to totally fuck the tech sector and infuriate young people. The question is will they wake up and do something about it.

          1. You’re a paranoid idiot who watches too much FOX News and lets Matt Drudge lead you around on a leash.

            1. Pot, kettle; kettle, pot.

    2. Willful stupidity makes me angry.

      1. This is why ‘Tony’ hates himself.

        1. Hating yourself and every one else is a common trait of proglodytes.

        2. Tony’s not intelligent enough to realize his stupidity.

          Tony simply hates humanity, although, due to that same stupidity, he’d claim the opposite.

      2. Awww, Tony mad. Poor Tony, stop making yourself angry. Get something to drink and go back to sleep. Didn’t mommy give you your allowance this week?

      3. Then maybe you should acquire some critical thinking skills and apply them to what the “experts” are telling you, instead of remaining willfully stupid.

        1. Your narcissism is a wonder to behold. Let’s move to another field. Tell me, what are theoretical physicists getting wrong?

          1. Experimental physicists could probably answer that one after several years of gathering all the pertinent data.

          2. If you applied critical thinking skills towards climate “science” you would see that it is indeed a religion (as this guy admitted), unlike actual science like, say, theoretical physics for example.

            But I know you cannot do this because you’re enthralled in the religion yourself. You’re a zealot and you don’t even know it because you feel that that which you have faith in is science. If you thought about it, instead of feeling, then you could see it for what it is. Which is not science.

            1. You don’t indicate that you’ve given even the slightest effort to understand this field of research.

              1. Like I said, Tony, get yourself some critical thinking skills. Then instead of feeling, give thinking a try.

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  28. BTW, know why the Dharma Initiative on Lost got that name? See http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/teach . It was so they could have a logo resembling that of the TV show Department S. The swan silhouette looks like an S, and “Dharma” sounds like “Department” with a mouth full of something. Lost got much of its plot from several episodes of Department S, most obviously from the one titled “One of Our Aircraft Is Empty”, wherein everyone aboard an airliner mysteriously disappears and turns up on an island (Ireland, which, come to think of it, even sounds like “island”). It’s also why character Charlie had a “DS” signet ring.

  29. On some level you believe you are right. But there’s a slight problem with your position. It’s overwhelmingly wrong.

    Since 1855 we’ve known CO2 traps heat. But better, the Air Force spent the 1950s on heat seeking missiles that were blinded over heavily CO2 polluted areas. They mapped the heat trapping effect of CO2. Incontestable, basic physics. By the 60s, we measured CO2. By the 70s we used satellites & better ground & ocean based thermometer measurements. By the 80s: clear the temperature was rising, the sun wasn’t getting hotter, volcanoes weren’t abnormal but CO2 was skyrocketing. Scientists raised caution flag. CO2 has 200 year half-life in the atmosphere. If their fears were right they HAD to warn us to adjust soon. We didn’t. Temps kept rising. Ice caps & glaciers melted faster than any model predicted. Bioregions moved polewards across the planet. Spring starts earlier now, up to 10 days sooner. Sea levels accelerating their rise. Each decade the frequency of intense storms increased. All documented in over 50,000 peer reviewed published papers. Every science & engineering academy in the world, from every nation (+OPEC, Russia, Norway) agrees. Human activity is warming the planet.

    But, Exxon & other oil, gas, pipeline & power companies hired the PR firms that fought the link between smoking & lung cancer. Millions of $$ to sow a campaign of doubt. Well documented in court filings, in leaked documents from Heartland & others. That’s the reality.

    1. What the fuck do oil companies have to do with this?

  30. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  31. “Pachauri has been criticized by many . . . ” right wing science deniers. there, i fixed it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.